====6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. ====

====6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. ====

−

Yes there is some information, which relates to the aims of embryology. However so much more is needed.

+

Yes there is some information, which relates to the aims of embryology. However so much more is needed. The introduction has some information on how TGF beta controls certain processes in development such as proliferation, cellular differentiation, angiogenesis etc however this needs to be clearer. I am not sure where the introduction finishes and new sub headings begin.

====7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki. ====

====7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki. ====

Revision as of 09:55, 7 October 2016

The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.

The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

Content is correctly cited and referenced.

The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.

Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.

Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.

The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.

Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Peer Review

Group 6 Peer Review

Positive Factors

Group 6 have shown that they intend to cover the scope of the topic by the subheadings they have added to their page so far (which will allow them to adequately address criteria 1 and 2). The explanations so far are easy to understand from a student’s perspective, and have supporting diagrams to support the information on TGF (which shows they have begun to address criteria 4). Another strength of this page is the inclusion of a ‘Further Reading’ section, which could allow readers to access more relevant information if they wish to do so.

Points for Improvement

Some improvements that Group 6 could make to their page are as follows: Group 6 could format the subheadings so that they do not all fall underneath ‘1.1 Introduction’; furthermore they could add in-text referencing with numbers that link to a ‘References’ section at the bottom of the page; and also Group 6 could improve the formatting of the images to be more incorporated into the flow of the page.

Overall

Overall I think Group 6 have formed a good template to add more information on the scope of their topic, and have begun to address some of the criteria. Most importantly I think they should try and address criteria 5 and 6 more adequately, and make a couple of formatting changes to the page so that their well-written explanations are more engaging and organised for a student audience.

Group 6:

Positive aspects of the project and suggested improvements:

The authors of group 6 have created a variety of subheadings related to the TGF-beta signalling pathway, including the nature of the growth factor, its mechanism of action, history and emerging research (criteria 1). Authors have also provided two diagrams related to TGF-beta signalling which reinforces the description of TGF signalling provided (criteria 2). These diagrams allow for a much simpler interpretation of the signalling process described and assist in teaching at the peer level (criteria 4). It appears that the authors are beginning to conduct investigations into new research surrounding TGF-beta signalling, thus indicating that they are attempting to research beyond formal teaching activities (criteria 5).

Whilst it is excellent that multiple subheadings have been provided, a possible improvement would be to include a much larger variety of subheadings which cover the scope of TGF-beta’s role in embryonic development, abnormalities, types of TGF receptors and animal models. This may allow audiences to understand the big picture surrounding this signalling pathway which will assist in the understanding of the information already provided. Another improvement to this page would be to include more images under different subheadings. One example would be to include an image or table showing the history of discovery surrounding discovery of this signalling pathway.

Negative aspects of the project and suggested improvements:

Although there were positive aspects of this project, there were also numerous negative aspects which may be improved. One key negative feature of the page was that the authors did not discuss the role of TGF-beta signalling in the context of embryonic development, hence meaning they failed to meet criteria 6. To ensure that this criterion is met, authors may conduct research into the involvement of TGF-beta in specific processes that occur during embryonic development, perhaps organ development and growth of different primitive structures. In addition, whilst the authors have provided a history of the TGF-beta signalling pathway, the history appears to be very brief. Thus an improvement which may be implemented would be to include a more extensive background regarding the history of discovery of the pathway. It was also noticed that no tables were utilised within the page. A possible improvement would be to include a table describing different abnormalities and their causes in the context of disruption of the TGF-beta pathway. A table may also be utilised to describe different subtypes of TGF-beta receptors as well as their functions during embryonic development. Tables may be utilised as they will assist in the process of teaching at the peer level (criteria 4), particularly because they convey information in an orderly and organised manner.

The authors of this project also failed to meet criteria 3, in that only one source was referenced in the process of the signalling pathway and also no in-text citations were provided. In addition, authors failed to reference the image file named, “Process of TGF-beta signalling pathway 01”. It is vital that all sources are referenced correctly in order to ensure that the copyright laws regarding the use of information are adhered to. The final negative aspect of the project was that the page did not flow very well, in that subheadings were arranged in a disorderly fashion. An example of this is the inclusion of the subheading labelled, “history of TGF-beta signalling pathway”, towards the end of the page. Since such a subheading provides a background surrounding the pathway, a possible improvement would be to include this subheading at the beginning of the page. By ensuring the orderliness of the page, this creates a sense of coherency between subheadings, thus making the page more appealing and engaging.

Group 6

It was good to see some progress being made on the project with the development of some subheadings and the inclusion of an image. In saying this, a better selection of headings and sub-headings could be developed to break down the topic of TGF beta signaling pathway. I think the sub-headings provided under the general heading of ‘Introduction’ could form the main headings of this research project and they could then be further broken down into various subheadings. In addition, the subheading of TGF-beta could be eliminated and this definition could be incorporated into the glossary or general introduction of the topic instead. Furthermore, more focus is needed on the influence of this pathway on embryological development and the abnormalities caused by mutations to the pathway and its components. For example, there has been mention of the effect of TGF-beta in ‘development of the embryo and adult organism, as well as cell growth, immune function and hormone secretion’ but further discussion has not been pursued.

Though a good description of the ‘process of TGF-beta signaling pathway’ has been provided, it could be further improved by referencing the images included in this section in your text (e.g. refer to Figure 1) to aid one’s understanding of the concept being explored. In addition, a timeline of events could be provided to explore the history of this pathway and it would be appropriate to begin with the discovery of TGF-beta. To a reader, information on ‘transformed or malignant cells’ seems unrelated to the TGF-beta signaling pathway even though it may be in fact be related, due to lack of discussion of this pathway or TGF-beta in this description. In regards to the section on ‘Limitations’, what types of limitations are you trying to explore? Limitations in research? This could be better defined by appropriately allocating subheadings to each of the sections.

Though you are heading in the right direction, spending time to produce a basic layout of your project by creating appropriate headings and subheadings would be useful in breaking down the concepts needed to be explored in this pathway. This could be achieved by communicating with group members through the discussion page and providing feedback and suggestions. In addition, greater focus is required in referencing and citing your work to ensure researchers and authors are acknowledged for their work. Also, by exploring animal models of the TGF-beta pathway and the effect of this research in understanding this pathway in humans and its influence on embryological development, you could greatly increase the quality of your work. You could also try and make your project more interactive and engaging through the inclusion of tables, images and diagrams. I hope this helps! Good luck!

Group 6 Critical Assessment

It is great to see an in-depth overview of the TGF beta Signalling pathway and it’s mechanism of action. The page is off to a great start and with a few key improvements it can turn into a successful one! Firstly, I like the use of images to aid the reader in understanding the content better should they be a visual learner. By reading the text on the way the pathway works, it is clear it is a complicated process hence a suggestion would be to add short clips/animations to simplify it for the viewer.

Under your introduction an attempt has been made to briefly highlight the main features of the pathway, however a negative of this section is that a lot of the content is basically listed. For example it is mentioned TGF-beta is part of a larger TGF superfamily comprising of different members such as activins and GDFs. Instead of listing, try presenting your information in a different format such as a table with s few columns stating the member, it’s function, and possibly what a mutation could lead to.

Additionally it is also stated that TGF beta has certain functions such as controlling angiogenesis however doesn’t expand on the ‘other’ functions it has. To turn this into a positive, dedicate different sections on how the pathway is involved in angiogenesis, hormone secretion, proliferation etc. If there are too many functions to fit onto the page, you could shift a few to your ‘Further Reading’ section as an option if the reader would like to explore further into the pathway’s functions, or construct a hidden table that the viewer can expand if they wish to.

In order to satisfy criteria 3, in text citations should be incorporated within text so the viewer has an option to access the article if they find the statement interesting. A reference list has been posted with a few references however ensure they are cited in the correct format. Overall a great start!

Group 6 Peer Assessment

In this project page a good start has been made with the inclusion of images to compliment the signalling pathway description. Appropriate abbreviations appear to be used, where the full name is used first. Also the additions of a glossary and further reading subheading is a nice touch, which should allow for better understanding of the topic should the reader want more information. In terms of the diversity of the subheadings though, it seems that a lot more could be added, such as animal models used to research the signalling pathway and also possibly abnormalities that may arise from the errors or mutations in the pathway. It is probably wise to also add a section regarding embryological development and what role TGF beta signalling pathway has in it, which should help provide context to the abnormalities section when added.

The usage of pictures is appropriate for the section it has been put in, and compliments the signal transduction pathway description well, but the picture labelled “Process of TGF-beta signalling pathway” does not appear to be referenced or have the appropriate copyright under it. There is also no legend for this picture to briefly describe it. Also for most of the page there are limited to no references, where for the signalling pathway section, it appears your groups has used websites rather than peer reviewed articles as a source. The websites are probably good starting points to get a general idea of the pathway, but it is probably better if you find peer reviewed papers to cite, which potentially the websites you have used have cited. Also when citing it is best to use in text citation such that the reader can easily see which paper you are referring to when describing certain facts.

Also in your groups signalling section, it is mentioned that SMAD when activated, recruits various transcriptional regulators that control expression of numerous genes. This is quite vague and is probably a good idea to mention some of these factors, and also what genes they regulate and the importance of such genes. Doing this should also provide your group with a good link to the embryological development section with regards to TGF-beta signalling.

It still seems that overall there is a lot of work to be done on your groups page, but a good start and effort has been made to include various images and also subheadings. I feel that if your group incorporates some of the suggested subheadings described above, and other feedback mentioned, the page should be greatly improved.

Group 6 – TGF-beta

You guys have made a good start to the project identifying some important subheadings introducing the TGF-beta signaling pathway, outlining its history, current research and limitations (which may be more appropriately labeled as abnormalities.) However, I do think the structure of these should be revised, what I mean by this is that you should create more levels of headings (as currently all the headings are located under the larger heading of introduction.) Furthermore, it terms of the headings, I think you need to introduce the signaling pathway, then discuss the history of its discovery, then discuss the specific mechanisms behind the pathway, its role in embryonic development (which is a very important aspect in order to relate your project back to what we are learning in the lectures and tutorials), then animal models and abnormalities. You have chosen to include some images which appear to be useful for explaining the signaling pathway, however I think it is important to refer to them in your text, as well as appropriately referencing them with the copyright from the original source (as the larger one is missing this information.)

Some negative aspects of this project are the lack of appropriate references, there are no in-text citations and the identified sources that have been used appear to be websites. Remember that most of the information, if not all should be acquired from primary research articles (supplemented with the occasional review article.) Furthermore, similar to other projects, in order to make your page more engaging you could look into including tables (say for the history or summary of receptor subtypes), more images, YouTube links or animations, or an interactive quiz.

In conclusion it seems that there is still a lot of work to be completed on this page before it is to be submitted, however you have made a successful start. The main criticisms are regarding revisiting the subheadings and including the role of embryonic development as I think this is really critical to the project, as well as adding more information to the page in general. In saying that it appears you guys are heading in the right direction!

Group 6 Peer Assessment

Positive aspects of the project and improvements:

Upon reviewing the page I can see a number of headings and subheadings such as the nature of the growth factor, its mechanism of action, history and emerging research. But to be critical, a range of other headings is necessary to ensure all bases are covered when researching and providing the relevant information. This will help in satisfying the requirements for criteria 1 and 2. It is good to see the addition of a diagram to your project as it is a requirement for criteria 2. This provided a visual aid that kept me interested to find out more about the topic while simultaneously making it easier to understand the theory behind the process of TGF Beta signalling pathway. It is also great to see the current research and limitations as this shows that you are going beyond the scope of the required criteria and researching ahead to provide that extra bit of information. This in turn is a great way to satisfy criteria 5.

Negative aspects of the project and improvements:

Although there are a few positives in the project, there are a number of negatives which can be improved upon to ensure a coherent project is created. Firstly, it is advised to put the heading “history of TGF- beta signalling pathway at the top” with the introduction as this is an introductory section and should be addressed initially on the page. This will allow you to create a more flowing page which also looks nice. Secondly, it would be advised to add more images and tables as it is a requirement for criteria 2. By doing this you will keep the reader engaged and wanting to find out more about the chosen topic. In saying that, you already have a couple of images but not referenced. It is imperative to correctly cite and reference these images as failure to do so will result in a breach of copyright laws.

Another critique is to add more subheadings with a range of different aspects of the signalling pathway being explored. It is recommended that you dedicate a chunk of your project to describing the pathway in detail and its role in embryonic development and abnormalities relating to mutations caused by the pathway. This will ensure you answer criteria 6 as it is a great deal of the report. It is also advised to put the history section under the introduction section as placing it in the middle of the project is a bit out of place and inhibits the flow of the information from one subheading to another. Also, the history section can be improved by adding more information as there have been more findings in this research topic since the 1970s. An addition of glossary is also needed for terms such as “peptide”, “cytokine”, “angiogenesis”, “protein kinase” etc. This will aid readers understand terms that they previously have not encountered and allow them to correctly understand the context of the information.

It has also come to my attention that there are little to no references or in text citations. By adding information without correctly giving the authors credit is a breach of copyright laws and must be done urgently. Overall, the project shows signs of progress with a number of positives. By reflecting on the negative aspects and acting upon it, it is certain that high marks are in order.

Group 6 Peer Assessment

Positive Feedback:

The introduction is very simple and clear making it a perfect way to familiarise with the TGF-beta signalling before diving into any more information.
The process is also described very well as it is aided with two pictures which were excellent choices. Together the information and the pictures collate to create a stable understanding of how TGF-beta signals actually communicates.

Critical Feedback:

You guys can definitely focus on explaining its role specifically in embryo development which is a key criteria for this project. This can be done in many was such as tables or pictures if there is too much information. It would also be a good idea to talk about the things that could go wrong with TGF-beta signalling pathway and the current research being done to rectify this as this is something that is very interesting and also relevant.

You guys should also start referencing early as it can become very problematic later on to keep track and doing very quick citations would go a long way later when editing the project. Lastly it would possibly help if everyone brainstormed some subheadings and categories that you further want to talk about e.g. animal models and that way you know what information you are looking for.
This page has a very strong start and if that quality is carried through to the rest of the content it will be a very successful page.

Group 6

This web page is slowly developing, and in comparison to the other web pages, is lacking in information, meaning there are many improvements that must be made before submission. Headings have been included which are relevant and cohesive. However, the information beneath these headings should be more substantial in text and images. Two comprehensive diagrams have been included, however they are not properly labelled or referenced. Including student drawn diagrams, tables or figures would be a great addition to the web page and would fulfil the criteria for including student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or interesting examples or explanations. The images included would serve better further down in the web page where the reader has knowledge of this signalling process and what is involved to then apply and consolidate in the image. When they are placed so high up in the web page before the reader has learnt about the process, it often makes the images seem irrelevant until this information is read. Seeing terms for the first time on an image is not the purpose of a diagram. Rather, they should consolidate and summarise the information that has just been read. Other inclusions could be a video or short movie showing processes discussed, such as the bone and cartilage formation, mesoderm induction and patterning and dorso-ventral patterning controlled by the TGF superfamily.

Several things could be included to make this web page more substantial. A table comparing and summarising the different members of the TGF family would add to the depth of this page. This table would compare the family members: TGF-beta 1, 2 and 3, Activins, Inhibins, Lefty, Nodal, Growth Differentiation Factors (GDFs), Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs), Glial-derived Neurotrophic Factors (GDNFs) and Mullierian Inhibiting Substance (MIS). This would provide evidence of significant research, which would satisfy the criteria of this project. Many of the headings and sections have not been completed. For example, a glossary section has been started but needs to be more substantial. This could include more terms such as explanations for the abbreviations used in the first diagram at the top of the page - LTBP1, LTBP2, LTBP3, LTBP4 and more.

A “History of TGF-Beta signalling pathway” has also been included with minimal information. This section would be made more accessible and easier to read by arranging it on a timeline. A “Current research” heading has also been added but again needs more information. This section is important as it highlights current gaps in knowledge. It should also be summarised to be included in the “History of TGF-Beta signalling pathway” timeline. The “Limitations” heading is not very clear. Changing this title to “Abnormalities” or something similar would be more relevant, and again more information is needed to enhance the reader’s understanding of the topic. Images could also be included here to describe the symptoms or characteristics of the diseases associated with Mutations in the TGF-beta RII gene.

Many improvements can be made to the referencing of the information in this project. No in-text referencing has been included. A few internet links have been placed under a “References” heading. This is not sufficient as the reader does not know exactly where each piece of information has come from, and hence are not able to search for the exact research paper for more information on a specific section. A wider range of references would also show comprehensiveness in the research of the group, and that they have widely researched this topic, again satisfying the criteria of this project.

Peer Assessment: Project 6: TGF beta Signaling Pathway

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.

There are headings for key points but the information for these key points has not been added so far. There is a heading for introduction but this has not been filled.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

There are two black and white figures which are quite clear and well done. However they are not referenced.

3. Content correctly cited.

The content is not cited correctly. There is a reference section but there are no publications that have been cited listed. The figure is not referenced at all. If there is any information on the page why are there no citations at all????

4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.

There are two figures. There does not seem to be any examples or explanations that show the students own innovation. A time line would help a great deal.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is somewhat evident but there is not enough clear information and it makes it difficult for the reader to follow the topic. There are only a few topics which have information. Clearly not enough work has been done by the students.

6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

Yes there is some information, which relates to the aims of embryology. However so much more is needed. The introduction has some information on how TGF beta controls certain processes in development such as proliferation, cellular differentiation, angiogenesis etc however this needs to be clearer. I am not sure where the introduction finishes and new sub headings begin.

7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.

Each section has been divided amongst the group but it seems that the members of the group have not really communicated or finished their own sections. This is not clear at all. There is no communication in the Discussion section.

====8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning. ====
This is not demonstrated and it seems that the key areas have not yet been researched adequately. There is still a lot of information missing and the overall flow of this wiki is a work in process it seems. There is no information discussed between the students in the Discussion area.

9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.

The key areas on this wiki have been set up but there is no clear and adequate information that is correctly cited at all. It is a very poor effort thus far in terms of group research. Nothing has been cited correctly.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

This still has not been achieved at all. There is no editing and it seems the group has put little effort in this project.